EJMcD wrote:
Thanks for responding to my question but, no offense intended, it leaves me with more questions. "images are lined up 2 months ahead"??
Lined up? Who? What? Where? Why?
Of course you are not obligated to answer but I don't comprehend.
I have thousands of images that are post able. I line them up two months ahead, one post daily. After they are lined up, I look to set up the next set.
EJMcD wrote:
Building suspense or trying to find it?
The images are lined up about 2 months ahead. Then I take the summers off, so that means it could be November or December this year.
tcthome wrote:
You would think the parents would make sure the young'ns would get some too! Oh well, great photo.
Most parents are good about bringing in small minnows and regurgitating them into the mouths of the youngsters. It is not a proven process. The chicks position the best they can, but, size and reach will always have an advantage.
Unlike Wood Storks who are much more communal in the nest and seem to cooperate when it comes to eating.
SuperflyTNT wrote:
As someone who has used both the 200-500 and the 180-600 I don’t even think it’s close. The 200-500 is a good lens and it worked better on the Z9 with the adapter than on my D500. That being said, the 180-600 is better in almost every way. It focuses faster, it’s sharper, it’s weathersealed, it has internal zoom and focus. The only edge for the 200-500 is a constant f/5.6, but I’ll go an extra 1/3 stop for more range and all the other improvements. I actually preferred the 100-400 Z with the 1.4 TC at f/9 over the 200-500.
As someone who has used both the 200-500 and the 1... (
show quote)
Yeah, you left out one SMALL item, the OP has the 2-5, I suggested he start out with that and then move to the 180-600 if he was not happy.
niteman3d wrote:
The missing link (for me). I see my next lens barring major flaws:
https://www.nikon.com/company/news/2024/0327_imaging_01.html
https://www.dpreview.com/news/7895147715/nikon-announces-the-z-28-400mm-f4-8-vr
Too long, too heavy, too much extension at 400mm, too SLOW at 400mm, that lens is NOT a travel lens unless you are intending to have your neck massaged each night while your on vacation.
CHG_CANON wrote:
Why not buy any of the numerous offerings from Canon (Powershots) or Sony (Cybershots) for a pocket-sized digital model with numerous zoom focal length options? Whoopee dipty dooo on the 'benefit' of a limited selection of interchangeable lenses. Given the lower cost (about $400), I'd seriously question the long-term survivability of these products, aka value for money.
Oh CHG-CANON, everyone knows that Sony's offerings are actually better.
Has Nikon rumors gone mad?
A Z9H with a global shutter?
What is the world coming to?
Is Nikon trying to act like Sony?
Will the Z6II be able to be that all camera, still and video like the Sony has?
Will Nikon produce APS-C lenses for there proposed Z90? And if they do, will it take as long as it did for Z FF?
And why not just produce a Z500, isn't that what all the Nikon boys and girls were hopping for.
Who are you really trying to be Nikon, Sony or Canon.
I believe it's toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo late!
About 10 day old Great Egret chicks. First born have an excellent chance of fledging. First born are going to be able to reach up further and be the ones to eat first when mom and dad bring in food to the nest. Chicks born hours or days later must fight for every scrap. Early relationships among heron chicks is fierce.
Wakodahatchee Wetlands.
Sony a1, Sony 200-600 @ 456mm f6.3, auto exposure, -.7
imagemeister wrote:
Zeiss is the one that should be making this lens - it can be done very well - like the lens on the RX10 ! - even tho Tamron has been upping their came lately.....
Tamron's "upped game" is still in the "minor league" of the photographic world.
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I'm 80. I can't hand hold my D850 with 200-500. I use a 300 f4 with 1.4 and it offers enough that I don't plan to go longer for hand holding.
If that is the case,then u do not want the 180-600 z.
SIMIBILL wrote:
I am an amateur photographer and not very familiar with the best ways to use on-camera flash. I have a canon r5 and a canon 430xrt speed light.
I shoot events for my Elks Lodge. The lighting is uneven and the ceilings are 15 ft high.
I have been bouncing the flash off the ceiling and getting acceptable results.
My question is would using a 9 x 11 inch on-flash diffuser give me better results?
And add a white note card rubber banded to the back of that flash.
Cylus wrote:
I am off for Alaska agin - to see the scenery and wildlife. One of my instructors recommended I get a new tripod (old one has broken) and recommended a Feisol 3442 and their ball head too. Having a hard time finding recent reviews of them. Anyone familiar with the brand? Thank you!!
It's a shame you do not have the time, buying a tripod is just like buying shoes, if you don't try them on first, you will probably be disappointed.
When ever I am in the market for a new tripod, I go to B&H and try them ALL, last time it took me 3 1/2 hours to find the perfect fit and cost for me. I am 6'3" and yes, I need a tall one.
And traveling with any tripod, in my opinion, will only slow you down, and if your on a tour with a group, I strongly suggest you leave it at home.